Jose El-Amaya v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-233-988 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999308791].. [13-1384]

Appeal: 13-1384

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1384

JOSE ARMANDO AB EL-AMAYA, a/k/a Jose Armando Abel Amaya,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

February 20, 2014

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

FLOYD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 5, 2014

HAMILTON,

Senior

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen C. Fleming, LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN C. FLEMING, State
College, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery,
Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Levings, Song Park, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1384

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jose Armando Ab El-Amaya, a native and citizen of El
Salvador,

petitions

for

Appeals’

(“Board”)

order

immigration
withholding

judge’s
of

review

Against Torture (“CAT”).

the

dismissing

order

removal

of

of

Immigration

his

appeal

from

the

his

denying

and

Board

applications

for

protection

under

the

Convention

We deny the petition for review.

El-Amaya first disputes the Board’s agreement with the
immigration judge’s rejection of his claim that he was entitled
to withholding of removal because he suffered past persecution,
and feared future persecution, on account of his membership in
the particular social group of individuals who resist and oppose
gang membership.

Our review is limited to evaluating whether

the Board’s denial of withholding of removal on this basis is
manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion.
Zelaya

v.

(stating

Holder,

F.3d

of

standard

668

159,

165,

review

as

167

set

(4th

forth

See

Cir.

2012)

8

U.S.C.

in

Zelaya

Cir.

2011),

in

§ 1252(b)(4)(D) (2012)).
Unfortunately
and

Lizama

v.

Holder,

for
629

El-Amaya,
F.3d

squarely foreclose his position.
that

opposition

to

gangs

“is

our

440,

decisions

447

(4th

In Zelaya, we clearly held
an

amorphous

characteristic

providing neither an adequate benchmark for determining group
membership nor embodying a concrete trait that would readily
2

Appeal: 13-1384

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

identify a person as possessing such a characteristic.”
668 F.3d at 166; see also Lizama, 629 F.3d at 447.
proposed

social

group

fails

on

the

Zelaya,

Thus, this

particularity

ground,

articulated by the Board in In re S-E-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579,
584-86

(BIA

2008),

and

to

Zelaya, 668 F.3d at 166-67.

which

we

accord

deference.

See

We accordingly conclude that the

Board’s denial of withholding of removal on this basis is not
manifestly contrary to the law or an abuse of discretion.

See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D).
El-Amaya

next

argues

that,

taken

together,

his

credible testimony and background evidence on conditions in El
Salvador constitute substantial evidence of his claimed fear of
future torture.

We review for substantial evidence the denial

of relief under the CAT.

Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124

(4th Cir. 2007).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case,
including all of the background evidence, and conclude that it
simply does not compel the conclusion that the gangs operate
with the acquiescence of the Salvadoran government or even that
the government turns a blind eye to their criminal activities.
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(1), (2), 1208.18(a)(1), (7) (2013).
We thus hold that substantial evidence supports the finding that
El-Amaya was not eligible for relief under the CAT.

3

Appeal: 13-1384

Doc: 36

Filed: 03/05/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

For these reasons, we deny the petition for review.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

4